Anda di halaman 1dari 8

REVIEW

published: 12 April 2017


doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557

The Stroop Color and Word Test


Federica Scarpina 1, 2* and Sofia Tagini 2, 3
1
“Rita Levi Montalcini” Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy, 2 IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano,
Ospedale San Giuseppe, Piancavallo, Italy, 3 CiMeC Center for the Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy

The Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT) is a neuropsychological test extensively used
to assess the ability to inhibit cognitive interference that occurs when the processing of
a specific stimulus feature impedes the simultaneous processing of a second stimulus
attribute, well-known as the Stroop Effect. The aim of the present work is to verify
the theoretical adequacy of the various scoring methods used to measure the Stroop
effect. We present a systematic review of studies that have provided normative data
for the SCWT. We referred to both electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, Google
Scholar) and citations. Our findings show that while several scoring methods have been
reported in literature, none of the reviewed methods enables us to fully assess the Stroop
effect. Furthermore, we discuss several normative scoring methods from the Italian
panorama as reported in literature. We claim for an alternative scoring method which
takes into consideration both speed and accuracy of the response. Finally, we underline
the importance of assessing the performance in all Stroop Test conditions (word reading,
color naming, named color-word).
Edited by:
Michael Noll-Hussong, Keywords: stroop color and word test, neuropsychological assessment, inhibition, executive functions, systematic
University of Ulm, Germany review
Reviewed by:
Francesca Burgio,
University of Padua, Italy INTRODUCTION
Yoshifumi Ikeda,
Joetsu University of Education, Japan The Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT) is a neuropsychological test extensively used for
*Correspondence: both experimental and clinical purposes. It assesses the ability to inhibit cognitive interference,
Federica Scarpina which occurs when the processing of a stimulus feature affects the simultaneous processing of
f.scarpina@auxologico.it another attribute of the same stimulus (Stroop, 1935). In the most common version of the
SCWT, which was originally proposed by Stroop in the 1935, subjects are required to read
Specialty section: three different tables as fast as possible. Two of them represent the “congruous condition”
This article was submitted to in which participants are required to read names of colors (henceforth referred to as color-
Psychology for Clinical Settings,
words) printed in black ink (W) and name different color patches (C). Conversely, in the
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
third table, named color-word (CW) condition, color-words are printed in an inconsistent
color ink (for instance the word “red” is printed in green ink). Thus, in this incongruent
Received: 10 November 2016
condition, participants are required to name the color of the ink instead of reading the word.
Accepted: 27 March 2017
Published: 12 April 2017
In other words, the participants are required to perform a less automated task (i.e., naming
ink color) while inhibiting the interference arising from a more automated task (i.e., reading
Citation:
Scarpina F and Tagini S (2017) The
the word; MacLeod and Dunbar, 1988; Ivnik et al., 1996). This difficulty in inhibiting the
Stroop Color and Word Test more automated process is called the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935). While the SCWT is widely
Front. Psychol. 8:557. used to measure the ability to inhibit cognitive interference; previous literature also reports its
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557 application to measure other cognitive functions such as attention, processing speed, cognitive

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

flexibility (Jensen and Rohwer, 1966), and working memory and Freshwater, 2002; Mitrushina et al., 2005; Strauss et al.,
(Kane and Engle, 2003). Thus, it may be possible to use the SCWT 2006a). At the end of the selection process we had 32 articles
to measure multiple cognitive functions. suitable for review (Figure 1).
In the present article, we present a systematic review of the From the systematic review, we extracted five studies with
SCWT literature in order to assess the theoretical adequacy of Italian normative data. Details are reported in Table 1. Of the
the different scoring methods proposed to measure the Stroop remaining 27 studies that provide normative data for non-Italian
effect (Stroop, 1935). We focus on Italian literature, which reports populations, 16 studies (Ivnik et al., 1996; Ingraham et al., 1988;
the use of several versions of the SCWT that vary in in terms of Rosselli et al., 2002; Moering et al., 2004; Lucas et al., 2005;
stimuli, administration protocol, and scoring methods. Finally, Steinberg et al., 2005; Seo et al., 2008; Peña-Casanova et al., 2009;
we attempt to indicate a score method that allows measuring Al-Ghatani et al., 2011; Norman et al., 2011; Andrews et al.,
the ability to inhibit cognitive interference in reference to the 2012; Llinàs-Reglà et al., 2013; Morrow, 2013; Lubrini et al., 2014;
subjects’ performance in SCWT. Rivera et al., 2015; Waldrop-Valverde et al., 2015) adopted the
scoring method proposed by Golden (1978). In this method, the
number of items correctly named in 45 s in each conditions is
METHODS calculated (i.e., W, C, CW). Then the predicted CW score (Pcw)
is calculated using the following formula:
We looked for normative studies of the SCWT. All studies
included a healthy adult population. Since our aim was to Pcw = 45/{((45 × W) + (45 × C))/(W × C)} (1)
understand the various available scoring methods, no studies
were excluded on the basis of age, gender, and/or education of equivalent to:
participants, or the specific version of SCWT used (e.g., short
or long, computerized or paper). Studies were identified using Pcw = (W × C)/(W + C) (2)
electronic databases and citations from a selection of relevant
articles. The electronic databases searched included PubMed (All Then, the Pcw value is subtracted from the actual number of
years), Scopus (All years) and Google Scholar (All years). The last items correctly named in the incongruous condition (CW) (i.e.,
search was run on the 22nd February, 2017, using the following IG = CW − Pcw): this procedure allows to obtain an interference
search terms: “Stroop; test; normative.” All studies written in score (IG) based on the performance in both W and C conditions.
English and Italian were included. Thus, a negative IG value represents a pathological ability to
Two independent reviewers screened the papers according to inhibit interference, where a lower score means greater difficulty
their titles and abstracts; no disagreements about suitability of the in inhibiting interference.
studies was recorded. Thereafter, a summary chart was prepared Six articles (Troyer et al., 2006; Bayard et al., 2011;
to highlight mandatory information that had to be extracted from Campanholo et al., 2014; Bezdicek et al., 2015; Hankee et al.,
each report (see Table 1). 2016; Tremblay et al., 2016) adopted the Victoria Stroop Test.
One Author extracted data from papers while the second In this version, three conditions are assessed: the C and the CW
author provided further supervision. No disagreements about correspond to the equivalent conditions of the original version of
extracted data emerged. We did not seek additional information the test (Stroop, 1935), while the W condition includes common
from the original reports, except for Caffarra et al. (2002), words which do not refer to colors. This condition represents
whose full text was not available: relevant information have been an intermediate inhibition condition, as the interference effect
extracted from Barletta-Rodolfi et al. (2011). between the written word and the color name is not present.
We extracted the following information from each article: In this SCWT form (Strauss et al., 2006b), for each condition,
the completion time and the number of errors (corrected, non-
• Year of publication. corrected, and total errors) are recorded and two interference
• Indexes whose normative data were provided. scores are computed:
Eventually, as regards the variables of interest, we focused
on those scores used in the reviewed studies to assess the I1 = Word/Dot for time (3)
performance at the SCWT. I2 = Interference/Dot for time (4)

Five studies (Strickland et al., 1997; Van der Elst et al., 2006;
RESULTS Zalonis et al., 2009; Kang et al., 2013; Zimmermann et al., 2015)
adopted different SCWT versions. Three of them (Strickland
We identified 44 articles from our electronic search and screening et al., 1997; Van der Elst et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2013) computed,
process. Eleven of them were judged inadequate for our purpose independently, the completion time and the number of errors for
and excluded. Four papers were excluded as they were written each condition. Additionally, Van der Elst et al. (2006), computed
in languages other than English or Italian (Bast-Pettersen, 2006; an interference score based on the speed performance only:
Duncan, 2006; Lopez et al., 2013; Rognoni et al., 2013); two were
excluded as they included children (Oliveira et al., 2016) and TI = CWT − [(WT + CT)/2] (5)
a clinical population (Venneri et al., 1992). Lastly, we excluded
six Stroop Test manuals, since not entirely procurable (Trenerry where WT, CT, and CWT represent the time to complete
et al., 1989; Artiola and Fortuny, 1999; Delis et al., 2001; Golden the W, C, and CW table, respectively. Zalonis et al. (2009)

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

TABLE 1 | Summary of data extracted from reviewed articles; those related to the Italian normative data are in bold.

References Index

Ingraham et al., 1988; Ivnik et al., 1996; Rosselli et al., 2002; Moering IG = CW − [(W × C)/(W + C)]
et al., 2004; Lucas et al., 2005; Steinberg et al., 2005; Seo et al., 2008; where IG: interference score; CW: number of items properly named in 45 s in the CW condition;
Peña-Casanova et al., 2009; Al-Ghatani et al., 2011; Norman et al., W: number of items properly named in 45 s in the W condition; C: number of items properly
2011; Andrews et al., 2012; Llinàs-Reglà et al., 2013; Morrow, 2013; named in 45 s in the C condition.
Lubrini et al., 2014; Rivera et al., 2015; Waldrop-Valverde et al., 2015

Troyer et al., 2006; Bayard et al., 2011; Campanholo et al., 2014; • Completion time for each condition.
Bezdicek et al., 2015; Hankee et al., 2016; Tremblay et al., 2016 • Number of errors (corrected, not corrected, total errors) in each condition.
• Low Interference score:
W/C
where W: time to read commons words printed in different colored ink; C: time to name colored
dots.
• High Interference score:
CW/C
where CW: time to read colors names printed in incongruent colored ink; C: time to name
colored dots.

Strickland et al., 1997; Kang et al., 2013 • Time completion in W, C and CW condition.
• Errors in W, C, and CW condition.

Amato et al., 2006 • Time to name 50 items in the CW condition.

Barbarotto et al., 1998 • Correct answers in 30 s in C and in CW condition.


• Shortest interval (in seconds) of the sequence correctly read in C and CW condition.

Brugnolo et al., 2015 • Correct answers in 30 s in W, C, and CW condition.


• T to read the table in W, C, and CW condition.

Caffarra et al., 2002 • TI = CWT − [(WT + CT)/2]


where TI: time interference score; WT: time to complete W condition; CT: time to complete C
condition; CWT: time to complete CW condition.
• EI = CWE − [(WE + CE)/2]
Where EI: error interference score; EI: errors interference score; WE: errors in W condition;
CE: errors in C condition; CWE: errors in CW condition.

Valgimigli et al., 2010 • I = [(DC − DI)/(DC + DI)] × 100


where DC: correct answers in 20 s in C condition; DI: correct answers in 20 s in CW
condition.

Van der Elst et al., 2006 • Time to complete W, C, and CW conditions.


• Number of errors not self-corrected in W, C, and CW conditions.
• Interference score:
TI = CWT − [(WT + CT)/2]
where TI: time interference score; WT: time to complete W condition; CT: time to complete C
condition; CWT: time to complete CW condition.

Zalonis et al., 2009 • Time to read 112 words of colors printed in incongruous colored ink.
• Number of errors and number of self-corrections in the CW condition.
• Interference score for the CW condition:
Number of items properly named in 120 s—number of errors.

Zimmermann et al., 2015 • Errors in W, C, and CW condition.


• Corrected answer in 45 s in W, C, and CW, condition.
• Interference score:
Time to read CW + [errors CW × 2(time to read CW/number of items in CW)].

recorded: (i) the time; (ii) the number of errors and (iii) Zimmermann et al. (2015) computed the number of errors
the number of self-corrections in the CW. Moreover, they and the number of correct answers given in 45 s in each
computed an interference score subtracting the number conditions. Additionally, they calculated an interference score
of errors in the CW conditions from the number of derived by the original scoring method provided by Stroop
items properly named in 120 s in the same table. Lastly, (1935).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

FIGURE 1 | Flow diagram of studies selection process.

Of the five studies (Barbarotto et al., 1998; Caffarra et al., these studies administered the W, C, and CW conditions once
2002; Amato et al., 2006; Valgimigli et al., 2010; Brugnolo et al., (Amato et al., 2006; Valgimigli et al., 2010), Barbarotto et al.
2015) that provide normative data for the Italian population, (1998) administered the CW table twice, requiring participants
two are originally written in Italian (Caffarra et al., 2002; to read the word during the first administration and then
Valgimigli et al., 2010), while the others are written in English to name the ink color during the consecutive administration.
(Barbarotto et al., 1998; Amato et al., 2006; Brugnolo et al., Additionally, they also administered a computerized version of
2015). An English translation of the title and abstract of Caffarra the SCWT in which 40 stimuli are presented in each condition;
et al. (2002) is available. Three of the studies consider the red, blue, green, and yellow are used. Valgimigli et al. (2010)
performance only on the SCWT (Caffarra et al., 2002; Valgimigli and Caffarra et al. (2002) administered shorter paper versions
et al., 2010; Brugnolo et al., 2015) while the others also include of the SCWT including only three colors (i.e., red, blue, green).
other neuropsychological tests in the experimental assessment More specifically, the former administered only the C and CW
(Barbarotto et al., 1998; Amato et al., 2006). The studies are conditions including 60 items each, arranged in six columns of
heterogeneous in that they differ in terms of administered 10 items. The latter employed a version of 30 items for each
conditions, scoring procedures, number of items, and colors condition (i.e., W, C, CW), arranged in three columns of 10 items
used. Three studies adopted a 100-items version of the SCWT each.
(Amato et al., 2006; Valgimigli et al., 2010; Brugnolo et al., Only two of the five studies assessed and provided normative
2015) which is similar to the original version proposed by Stroop data for all the conditions of the SCWT (i.e., W, C, CW; Caffarra
(1935). In this version, in every condition (i.e., W, C, CW), items et al., 2002; Brugnolo et al., 2015), while others provide only
are arranged in a matrix of 10 × 10 columns and rows; the colors partial results. Valgimigli et al. (2010) provided normative data
are red, green, blue, brown, and purple. However, while two of only for the C and CW condition, while Amato et al. (2006) and

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

Barbarotto et al. (1998) administered all the SCWT conditions consequences of possible inhibition difficulties on the processing
(i.e., W, C, CW) but provide normative data only for the CW speed cannot be assessed. Indeed, patients would report a non-
condition, and the C and CW condition respectively. pathological reading speed in the incongruous condition, despite
These studies use different methods to compute subjects’ extremely poor performance, even if they do not apply the
performance. Some studies record the time needed, rule “naming ink color,” simply reading the word (e.g., in CW
independently in each condition, to read all (Amato et al., condition, when the stimulus is the word/red/printed in green
2006) or a fixed number (Valgimigli et al., 2010) of presented ink, patient says “Red” instead of “Green”). Such behaviors
stimuli. Others consider the number of correct answers produced provide an indication of the failure to maintain consistent
in a fixed time (30 s; Amato et al., 2006; Brugnolo et al., 2015). activation of the intended response in the incongruent Stroop
Caffarra et al. (2002) and Valgimigli et al. (2010) provide a more condition, even if the participants properly understand the
complex interference index that relates the subject’s performance task. Such scenarios are often reported in different clinical
in the incongruous condition with the performance in the others. populations. For example, in the incongruous condition, patients
In Caffarra et al. (2002), two interference indexes based on with frontal lesions (Vendrell et al., 1995; Stuss et al., 2001; Swick
reading speed and accuracy, respectively, are computed using and Jovanovic, 2002) as well as patients affected by Parkinson’s
the following formula: Disease (Fera et al., 2007; Djamshidian et al., 2011) reported
significant impairments in terms of accuracy, but not in terms
I = CW − ((W + C)/2) (6) of processing speed. Counting the number of correct answers in
a fixed time (Amato et al., 2006; Valgimigli et al., 2010; Brugnolo
Furthermore, in Valgimigli et al. (2010) an interference score is et al., 2015) may be a plausible solution.
computed using the formula: Moreover, it must be noted that error rate (and not the
speed) is an index of inhibitory control (McDowd et al.,
I = ((DC − DI)/(DC + DI)) × 100 (7) 1995) or an index of ability to maintain the tasks goal
temporarily in a highly retrievable state (Kane and Engle, 2003).
where DC represents the correct answers produced in 20 s Nevertheless, computing exclusively the error rate (i.e., the
in naming colors and DI corresponds to the correct answers accuracy in the performance), without measuring the speed of
achieved in 20 s in the interference condition. However, they performance, would be insufficient for an extensive evaluation
do not take into account the performance on the word reading of the performance in the SCWT. In fact, the behavior in the
condition. incongruous condition (i.e., CW) may be affected by difficulties
that are not directly related to an impaired ability to suppress
DISCUSSION the interference process, which may lead to misinterpretation
of the patient’s performance. People affected by color-blindness
According to the present review, multiple SCWT scoring or dyslexia would represent the extreme case. Nonetheless, and
methods are available in literature, with Golden’s (1978) version more ordinarily, slowness, due to clinical circumstances like
being the most widely used. In the Italian literature, the dysarthria, mood disorders such as depression, or collateral
heterogeneity in SCWT scoring methods increases dramatically. medication effect, may irremediably affect the performance in
The parameters of speed and accuracy of the performance, the SCWT. In Parkinson’s Disease, ideomotor slowness (Gardner
essential for proper detection of the Stroop Effect, are scored et al., 1959; Jankovic et al., 1990) impacts the processing speed
differently between studies, thus highlighting methodological in all SCWT conditions, determining a global difficulty in the
inconsistencies. Some of the reviewed studies score solely the response execution rather than a specific impairment in the
speed of the performance (Amato et al., 2006; Valgimigli CW condition (Stacy and Jankovic, 1992; Hsieh et al., 2008).
et al., 2010). Others measure both the accuracy and speed Consequently, it seems necessary to relate the performance in
of performance (Barbarotto et al., 1998; Brugnolo et al., the incongruous condition to word reading and color naming
2015); however, they provide no comparisons between subjects’ abilities, when inhibition capability has to be assessed, as
performance on the different SCWT conditions. On the other proposed by Caffarra et al. (2002). In this method the W score
hand, Caffarra et al. (2002) compared performance in the W, and C score were subtracted from CW score. However, as
C, and CW conditions; however, they computed speed and previously mentioned, the scoring method suggested by Caffarra
accuracy independently. Only Valgimigli et al. (2010) present a et al. (2002) computes errors and speed separately. Thus, so far,
scoring method in which an index merging speed and accuracy none of the proposed Italian normative scoring methods seem
is computed for the performance in all the conditions; however, adequate to assess patients’ performance in the SCWT properly
the Authors assessed solely the performance in the C and the and informatively.
CW conditions, neglecting the subject’s performance in the W Examples of more suitable interference scores can be found
condition. in non-Italian literature. Stroop (1935) proposed that the ability
In our opinion, the reported scoring methods impede an to inhibit cognitive interference can be measured in the SCWT
exhaustive description of the performance on the SCWT, as using the formula:
suggested by clinical practice. For instance, if only the reading
time is scored, while accuracy is not computed (Amato et al., total time + ((2 × mean time per word)
2006) or is computed independently (Caffarra et al., 2002), the × number of uncorrected errors) (8)

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

where, total time is the overall time for reading; mean time per According to the review, the studies with Italian normative
word is the overall time for reading divided by the number of data present different theoretical interpretations of the SCWT
items; and the number of uncorrected errors is the number of scores. Amato et al. (2006) and Caffarra et al. (2002) describe the
errors not spontaneously corrected. Gardner et al. (1959) also SCWT score as a measure of the fronto-executive functioning,
propose a similar formula: while others use it as an index of the attentional functioning
(Barbarotto et al., 1998; Valgimigli et al., 2010) or of general
total time + ((total time/100) × number of errors) (9) cognitive efficiency (Brugnolo et al., 2015). Slowing to a response
conflict would be due to a failure of selective attention or a lack in
where 100 refers to the number of stimuli used in this the cognitive efficiency instead of a failure of response inhibition
version of the SCWT. When speed and errors are computed (Chafetz and Matthews, 2004); however, the performance in
together, the correct recognition of patients who show difficulties the SCWT is not exclusively related to concentration, attention
in inhibiting interference despite a non-pathological reading or cognitive effectiveness, but it relies to a more specific
time, increases. However, both the mentioned scores (Stroop, executive-frontal domain. Indeed, subjects have to process
1935; Mitrushina et al., 2005) may be susceptible to criticism selectively a specific visual feature blocking out continuously
(Jensen and Rohwer, 1966). In fact, even though accuracy the automatic processing of reading (Zajano and Gorman, 1986;
and speed are merged into a global score in these studies Shum et al., 1990), in order to solve correctly the task. The specific
(Stroop, 1935; Mitrushina et al., 2005), they are not computed involvement of executive processes is supported by clinical data.
independently. In Gardner et al. (1959) the number of errors Patients with anterior frontal lesions, and not with posterior
are computed in relation to the mean time per item and then cerebral damages, report significant difficulties in maintaining a
added to the total time, which may be redundant and lead to a consistent activation of the intended response (Valgimigli et al.,
miscomputation. 2010). Furthermore, Parkinson’s Disease patients, characterized
The most adopted scoring method in the international by executive dysfunction due to the disruption of dopaminergic
panorama is Golden (1978). Lansbergen et al. (2007) point pathway (Fera et al., 2007), reported difficulties in SCWT despite
out that the index IG might not be adequately corrected for unimpaired attentional abilities (Fera et al., 2007; Djamshidian
inter-individual differences in the reading ability, despite its et al., 2011).
effective adjustment for color naming. The Authors highlight
that the reading process is more automated in expert readers, CONCLUSION
and, consequently, they may be more susceptible to interference
(Lansbergen et al., 2007), thus, requiring that the score is According to the present review, the heterogeneity in the
weighted according to individual reading ability. However, SCWT scoring methods in international literature, and most
experimental data suggests that the increased reading practice dramatically in Italian literature, seems to require an innovative,
does not affect the susceptibility to interference in SCWT alternative and unanimous scoring system to achieve a more
(Jensen and Rohwer, 1966). Chafetz and Matthews (2004)’s article proper interpretation of the performance in the SCWT. We
might be useful for a deeper understanding of the relationship propose to adopt a scoring method in which (i) the number of
between reading words and naming colors, but the debate correct answers in a fixed time in each SCWT condition (W,
about the role of reading ability on the inhibition process C, CW) and (ii) a global index relative to the CW performance
is still open. The issue about the role of reading ability on minus reading and/or colors naming abilities, are computed.
the SCWT performance cannot be adequately satisfied even Further studies are required to collect normative data for
if the Victoria Stroop Test scoring method (Strauss et al., this scoring method and to study its applicability in clinical
2006b) is adopted, since the absence of the standard W settings.
condition.
In the light of the previous considerations, we recommend AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
that a scoring method for the SCWT should fulfill two main
requirements. First, both accuracy and speed must be computed Conception of the work: FS. Acquisition of data: ST. Analysis
for all SCWT conditions. And secondly, a global index must and interpretation of data for the work: FS and ST. Writing: ST,
be calculated to relate the performance in the incongruous and revising the work: FS. Final approval of the version to be
condition to reading words and color naming abilities. The first published and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the
requirement can be achieved by counting the number of correct work: FS and ST.
answers in each condition in within a fixed time (Amato et al.,
2006; Valgimigli et al., 2010; Brugnolo et al., 2015). The second ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
requirement can be achieved by subtracting the W score and C
score from CW score, as suggested by Caffarra et al. (2002). None The Authors thank Prerana Sabnis for her careful proofreading
of the studies reviewed satisfies both these requirements. of the manuscript.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

REFERENCES analyses from the framingham heart study. Exp. Aging Res. 42, 315–328.
doi: 10.1080/0361073X.2016.1191838
Al-Ghatani, A. M., Obonsawin, M. C., Binshaig, B. A., and Al-Moutaery, K. R. Hsieh, Y. H., Chen, K. J., Wang, C. C., and Lai, C. L. (2008). Cognitive and motor
(2011). Saudi normative data for the Wisconsin Card Sorting test, Stroop test, components of response speed in the Stroop test in Parkinson’s disease patients.
test of non-verbal intelligence-3, picture completion and vocabulary (subtest of Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 24, 197–203. doi: 10.1016/S1607-551X(08)70117-7
the wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised). Neurosciences 16, 29–41. Ingraham, L. J., Chard, F., Wood, M., and Mirsky, A. F. (1988). An Hebrew
Amato, M. P., Portaccio, E., Goretti, B., Zipoli, V., Ricchiuti, L., De Caro, M. F., language version of the Stroop test. Percept. Mot. Skills 67, 187–192.
et al. (2006). The Rao’s brief repeatable battery and stroop test: normative values doi: 10.2466/pms.1988.67.1.187
with age, education and gender corrections in an Italian population. Mult. Scler. Ivnik, R. J., Malec, J. F., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. G., and Petersen, R. C. (1996).
12, 787–793. doi: 10.1177/1352458506070933 Neuropsychological tests’ norms above age 55: COWAT, BNT, MAE token,
Andrews, K., Shuttleworth-Edwards, A., and Radloff, S. (2012). Normative WRAT-R reading, AMNART, STROOP, TMT, and JLO. Clin. Neuropsychol. 10,
indications for Xhosa speaking unskilled workers on the Trail Making and 262–278. doi: 10.1080/13854049608406689
Stroop Tests. J. Psychol. Afr. 22, 333–341. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2012.10820538 Jankovic, J., McDermott, M., Carter, J., Gauthier, S., Goetz, C., Golbe, L., et al.
Artiola, L., and Fortuny, L. A. I. (1999). Manual de Normas Y Procedimientos Para (1990). Parkinson Study Group. Variable expression of Parkinson’s disease: a
la Bateria Neuropsicolog. Tucson, AZ: Taylor & Francis. base-line analysis of DATATOP cohort. Neurology 40, 1529–1534.
Barbarotto, R., Laiacona, M., Frosio, R., Vecchio, M., Farinato, A., and Capitani, E. Jensen, A. R., and Rohwer, W. D. (1966). The Stroop Color-Word Test: a Review.
(1998). A normative study on visual reaction times and two Stroop colour-word Acta Psychol. 25, 36–93. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(66)90004-7
tests. Neurol. Sci. 19, 161–170. doi: 10.1007/BF00831566 Kane, M. J., and Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the
Barletta-Rodolfi, C., Gasparini, F., and Ghidoni, E. (2011). Kit del Neuropsicologo control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition,
Italiano. Bologna: Società Italiana di Neuropsicologia. and task set to Stroop interference. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132, 47–70.
Bast-Pettersen, R. (2006). The Hugdahl Stroop Test: A normative stud y involving doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
male industrial workers. J. Norwegian Psychol. Assoc. 43, 1023–1028. Kang, C., Lee, G. J., Yi, D., McPherson, S., Rogers, S., Tingus, K.,
Bayard, S., Erkes, J., and Moroni, C. (2011). Collège des psychologues cliniciens et al. (2013). Normative data for healthy older adults and an
spécialisés en neuropsychologie du languedoc roussillon (CPCN Languedoc abbreviated version of the Stroop test. Clin. Neuropsychol. 27, 276–289.
Roussillon). Victoria Stroop Test: normative data in a sample group of doi: 10.1080/13854046.2012.742930
older people and the study of their clinical applications in the assessment Lansbergen, M. M., Kenemans, J. L., and van Engeland, H. (2007). Stroop
of inhibition in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 26, 653–661. interference and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and meta-
doi: 10.1093/arclin/acr053 analysis. Neuropsychology 21:251. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.251
Bezdicek, O., Lukavsky, J., Stepankova, H., Nikolai, T., Axelrod, B. N., Llinàs-Reglà J., Vilalta-Franch, J., López-Pousa, S., Calvó-Perxas, L., and Garre-
Michalec, J., et al. (2015). The Prague Stroop Test: normative standards Olmo, J. (2013). Demographically adjusted norms for Catalan older adults
in older Czech adults and discriminative validity for mild cognitive on the Stroop Color and Word Test. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 28, 282–296.
impairment in Parkinson’s disease. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 37, 794–807. doi: 10.1093/arclin/act003
doi: 10.1080/13803395.2015.1057106 Lopez, E., Salazar, X. F., Villasenor, T., Saucedo, C., and Pena, R. (2013). “Validez
Brugnolo, A., De Carli, F., Accardo, J., Amore, M., Bosia, L. E., Bruzzaniti, C., et al. y datos normativos de las pruebas de nominación en personas con educación
(2015). An updated Italian normative dataset for the Stroop color word test limitada,” in Poster Presented at The Congress of the “Sociedad Lationoamericana
(SCWT). Neurol. Sci. 37, 365–372. doi: 10.1007/s10072-015-2428-2 de Neuropsicologıa” (Montreal, QC).
Caffarra, P., Vezzaini, G., Dieci, F., Zonato, F., and Venneri, A. (2002). Una Lubrini, G., Periañez, J. A., Rios-Lago, M., Viejo-Sobera, R., Ayesa-Arriola,
versione abbreviata del test di Stroop: dati normativi nella popolazione italiana. R., Sanchez-Cubillo, I., et al. (2014). Clinical Spanish norms of the Stroop
Nuova Rivis. Neurol. 12, 111–115. test for traumatic brain injury and schizophrenia. Span. J. Psychol. 17:E96.
Campanholo, K. R., Romão, M. A., Machado, M. A. D. R., Serrao, V. T., Coutinho, doi: 10.1017/sjp.2014.90
D. G. C., Benute, G. R. G., et al. (2014). Performance of an adult Brazilian Lucas, J. A., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Ferman, T. J., Willis, F. B., Petersen, R. C., et al.
sample on the Trail Making Test and Stroop Test. Dement. Neuropsychol. 8, (2005). Mayo’s older african americans normative studies: norms for boston
26–31. doi: 10.1590/S1980-57642014DN81000005 naming test, controlled oral word association, category fluency, animal naming,
Chafetz, M. D., and Matthews, L. H. (2004). A new interference score for the Stroop token test, wrat-3 reading, trail making test, stroop test, and judgment of line
test. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 19, 555–567. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2003.08.004 orientation. Clin. Neuropsychol. 19, 243–269. doi: 10.1080/13854040590945337
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., and Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan Executive Function MacLeod, C. M., and Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference:
System (D-KEFS). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. evidence for a continuum of automaticity. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.
Djamshidian, A., O’Sullivan, S. S., Lees, A., and Averbeck, B. B. (2011). Stroop 14, 126–135. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.126
test performance in impulsive and non impulsive patients with Parkinson’s McDowd, J. M., Oseas-Kreger, D. M., and Filion, D. L. (1995). “Inhibitory processes
disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 17, 212–214. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010. in cognition and aging,” in Interference and Inhibition in Cognition, eds F. N.
12.014 Dempster and C. J. Brainerd (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 363–400.
Duncan, M. T. (2006). Assessment of normative data of Stroop test performance Mitrushina, M., Boone, K. B., Razani, J., and D’Elia, L. F. (2005). Handbook of
in a group of elementary school students Niterói. J. Bras. Psiquiatr. 55, 42–48. Normative Data for Neuropsychological Assessment. New York, NY: Oxford
doi: 10.1590/S0047-20852006000100006 University Press.
Fera, F., Nicoletti, G., Cerasa, A., Romeo, N., Gallo, O., Gioia, M. C., Moering, R. G., Schinka, J. A., Mortimer, J. A., and Graves, A. B. (2004). Normative
et al. (2007). Dopaminergic modulation of cognitive interference after data for elderly African Americans for the Stroop color and word test. Arch.
pharmacological washout in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Res. Bull. 74, 75–83. Clin. Neuropsychol. 19, 61–71. doi: 10.1093/arclin/19.1.61
doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.05.009 Morrow, S. A. (2013). Normative data for the stroop color word test
Gardner, R. W., Holzman, P. S., Klein, G. S., Linton, H. P., and Spence, D. P. (1959). for a north american population. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 40, 842–847.
Cognitive control: a study of individual consistencies in cognitive behaviour. doi: 10.1017/S0317167100015997
Psychol. Issues 1, 1–186. Norman, M. A., Moore, D. J., Taylor, M., Franklin, D. Jr., Cysique, L., Ake,
Golden, C. J. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test: A Manual for Clinical and C., et al. (2011). Demographically corrected norms for African Americans
Experimental Uses. Chicago, IL: Stoelting Co. and Caucasians on the hopkins verbal learning test–revised, brief visuospatial
Golden, C. J., and Freshwater, S. M. (2002). The Stroop Color and Word Test: A memory test–revised, stroop color and word test, and wisconsin card
Manual for Clinical and Experimental Uses. Chicago, IL: Stoelting. sorting test 64-card version. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 33, 793–804.
Hankee, L. D., Preis, S. R., Piers, R. J., Beiser, A. S., Devine, S. A., Liu, doi: 10.1080/13803395.2011.559157
Y., et al. (2016). Population normative data for the CERAD word list Oliveira, R. M., Mograbi, D. C., Gabrig, I. A., and Charchat-Fichman, H. (2016).
and Victoria Stroop Test in younger-and middle-aged adults: cross-sectional Normative data and evidence of validity for the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557


Scarpina and Tagini Italian SCWT Scores: A Review

Test, Verbal Fluency Test, and Stroop Test with Brazilian children. Psychol. adults and elderly. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 31, 926–933. doi: 10.1093/arclin/
Neurosci. 9, 54–67. doi: 10.1037/pne0000041 acw029
Peña-Casanova, J., Qui-ones-Ubeda, S., Gramunt-Fombuena, N., Quintana, Trenerry, M. R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., and Leber, W. R. (1989). Stroop
M., Aguilar, M., Molinuevo, J. L., et al. (2009). Spanish multicenter Neuropsychological Screening Test. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
normative studies (NEURONORMA Project): norms for the Stroop color-word Resources.
interference test and the Tower of London-Drexel. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 24, Troyer, A. K., Leach, L., and Strauss, E. (2006). Aging and response inhibition:
413–429. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acp043 normative data for the Victoria Stroop Test. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 13,
Rivera, D., Perrin, P. B., Stevens, L. F., Garza, M. T., Weil, C., Saracho, C. P., 20–35. doi: 10.1080/138255890968187
et al. (2015). Stroop color-word interference test: normative data for the Latin Valgimigli, S., Padovani, R., Budriesi, C., Leone, M. E., Lugli, D., and Nichelli, P.
American Spanish speaking adult population. Neurorehabilitation 37, 591–624. (2010). The Stroop test: a normative Italian study on a paper version for clinical
doi: 10.3233/NRE-151281 use. G. Ital. Psicol. 37, 945–956. doi: 10.1421/33435
Rognoni, T., Casals-Coll, M., Sánchez-Benavides, G., Quintana, M., Manero, R. M., Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M. P., Van Breukelen, G. J., and Jolles, J. (2006). The
Calvo, L., et al. (2013). Spanish normative studies in a young adult population Stroop Color-Word Test influence of age, sex, and education; and normative
(NEURONORMA young adults Project): norms for the Boston Naming Test data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment 13, 62–79.
and the Token Test. Neurología 28, 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2012.02.009 doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Santisi, M. N., Arecco Mdel, R., Salvatierra, J., Conde, A., Vendrell, P., Junqué, C., Pujol, J., Jurado, M. A., Molet, J., and Grafman, J. (1995).
et al. (2002). Stroop effect in Spanish–English bilinguals. J. Int. Neuropsychol. The role of prefrontal regions in the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia 33, 341–352.
Soc. 8, 819–827. doi: 10.1017/S1355617702860106 doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(94)00116-7
Seo, E. H., Lee, D. Y., Kim, S. G., Kim, K. W., Youn, J. C., Jhoo, J. H., Venneri, A., Molinari, M. A., Pentore, R., Cotticelli, B., Nichelli, P., and
et al. (2008). Normative study of the Stroop Color and Word Test in Caffarra, P. (1992). Shortened Stroop color-word test: its application
an educationally diverse elderly population. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 23, in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging 13, S3–S4.
1020–1027 doi: 10.1002/gps.2027 doi: 10.1016/0197-4580(92)90135-K
Shum, D. H. K., McFarland, K. A., and Brain, J. D. (1990). Construct validity of Waldrop-Valverde, D., Ownby, R. L., Jones, D. L., Sharma, S., Nehra, R., Kumar, A.
eight tests of attention: comparison of normal and closed head injured samples. M., et al. (2015). Neuropsychological test performance among healthy persons
Clin. Neuropsychol. 4, 151–162. doi: 10.1080/13854049008401508 in northern India: development of normative data. J. Neurovirol. 21, 433–438.
Stacy, M., and Jankovic, J. (1992). Differential diagnosis of parkinson’s disease and doi: 10.1007/s13365-015-0332-4
the parkinsonism plus syndrome. Neurol. Clin. 10, 341–359. Zajano, M. J., and Gorman, A. (1986). Stroop interference as a function
Steinberg, B. A., Bieliauskas, L. A., Smith, G. E., and Ivnik, R. J. (2005). Mayo’s of percentage of congruent items. Percept. Mot. Skills 63, 1087–1096.
older Americans normative studies: age-and IQ-adjusted norms for the trail- doi: 10.2466/pms.1986.63.3.1087
making test, the stroop test, and MAE controlled oral word association test. Zalonis, I., Christidi, F., Bonakis, A., Kararizou, E., Triantafyllou, N. I., Paraskevas,
Clin. Neuropsychol. 19, 329–377. doi: 10.1080/13854040590945210 G., et al. (2009). The stroop effect in Greek healthy population: normative data
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M., and Spreen, O. (2006a). A Compendium of for the Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Test. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 24,
Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary. Oxford: 81–88. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acp011
American Chemical Society. Zimmermann, N., Cardoso, C. D. O., Trentini, C. M., Grassi-Oliveira, R.,
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., and Spreen, O. (2006b). A Compendium of and Fonseca, R. P. (2015). Brazilian preliminary norms and investigation
Neuropsychological Tests, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. of age and education effects on the Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting
Strickland, T. L., D’Elia, L. F., James, R., and Stein, R. (1997). Stroop color- Test, Stroop Color and Word test and Digit Span test in adults.
word performance of African Americans. Clin. Neuropsychol. 11, 87–90. Dement. Neuropsychol. 9, 120–127. doi: 10.1590/1980-57642015DN92
doi: 10.1080/13854049708407034 000006
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J. Exp. Psychol.
18, 643–662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651 Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
Stuss, D. T., Floden, D., Alexander, M. P., Levine, B., and Katz, D. conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
(2001). Stroop performance in focal lesion patients: dissociation of be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
processes and frontal lobe lesion location. Neuropsychologia 39, 771–786.
doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00013-6 Copyright © 2017 Scarpina and Tagini. This is an open-access article distributed
Swick, D., and Jovanovic, J. (2002). Anterior cingulate cortex and the Stroop task: under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
neuropsychological evidence for topographic specificity. Neuropsychologia 40, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
1240–1253. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00226-3 author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal
Tremblay, M. P., Potvin, O., Belleville, S., Bier, N., Gagnon, L., Blanchet, S., is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
et al. (2016). The victoria stroop test: normative data in Quebec-French reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 April 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 557